05 September, 2004

they are both crazy. you can't be at war with verb or a noun, whatever it is.

this is the same as the war on drugs, it isn't a war, it's a criminal prosecution. And it would be more effective if we treated the problem rather than tried to stomp on it like an elephant stepping on a mouse.

Nixon was the only one that effectively won a victory in the war on drugs. He did it by setting up methadone clinics and making sure there was an active movement to get people into treatment. The problem went away in less than a year. And that was Heroin.

The problem is nobody really wants either war to end. Because without war, there is nothing to drive the economy. We are a slave of the industrial weapons complex as well as the criminal / enforcement bureaucracy. We ARE part of the problem, we make the weapons and install the dictators that drive the conditions that result in drug trade and terrorists.

It is interesting to note that the only effective drug clean up done on a federal level was at the steps of the White House, just 2 blocks away from Nixon's porch in Washington D.C. And after it was completed, the new drug czar immediately canceled it, and switched over to a nationwide policy of enforcement and arrest first, treatment became a secondary, under funded, policy that was viewed as too liberal and ineffective.

This will become the policy of the U.S. (Democrat or Republican) and we will build more prisons to house more terrorists, invade and carry out unpopular "excursions" into other countries using our military and the thing will go on endlessly or until the rest of the world tells us to fuk off. Just like the war on drugs. It's stupid, but people will get rich.